It's hard for me to imagine finding it boring. I think it's rich, strange, and riveting.

Logged

""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

I'm one of the few people here who really doesn't like this film. I wouldn't call it boring, but I would say it was rather too tidy ala movie land for my own satisfaction. It took quite a devastating topic and dragged it along a plot that only brings it to a element for another story, and an element that does no justice to the severity of the topic. I kept feeling I was watching another Hitchcock movie where some sort of disorder or situation was rounded up into a typical genre with typical results and not really searched anything of interest at all. I wish Lynch would have made this film around the time of Mulholland Dr. because I believe he has grown immensely since Blue Velvet and the results would have been much different.

Ditto. I really hated Blue Velvet, to be blunt. I mean, it sounded promising at the beginning, but like the other Lynch movie I've seen (Mulholland Drive), it fell apart at the end.

However, I can admire Lynch as a great filmmaker. But when it comes to narrative talent, Lynch is severely lacking.

While I agree wholeheartedly with Ebert's review of Blue Velvet (posted by SHAFTR), I disagree with his take on Mulholland Drive. I can appreciate its craft, but totally hate what Lynch did with his characters, and with the third act of the film. See James Berardinelli's Mulholland Drive review, which sums up how I felt about that (which is odd, because Berardinelli is one critic who I don't normally agree with). Ebert is one I normally think is brilliant, sans his thoughts on a few films that come to mind in particular: Mulholland Drive, Boys Don't Cry, Fight Club, Donnie Darko, Russian Ark, Saving Private Ryan, and Titanic (not to go off on a tangent or anything :-P).

Yes, I'd tend to agree. I really disliked Blue Velvet. But I liked Hopper in it, he was great. Lynch's stuff (particularily his endings) doesn't really work for me. But I still have to admit there is a lot of brilliance. I enjoyed Lost Highway for the most part, and I'd like to see it again. I loved Elephant Man. I was gonna write off Mulholland Drive, but due to so much good exposure here, I might give it another chance.

But yeah, like you guys, I pretty much agreed with Ebert.

Logged

Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary: the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

Ebert's assessment of Blue Velvet is one of the reasons I don't like him. It seemed totally baseless to me. Was he trying to be chivalrous, or something? The video clip from Siskel & Ebert is included on the Blue Velvet special-edition disc, and I think he just comes off like an ass with a fifth-rate intellect.

Logged

""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

I've never seen the video, I just read his review on his website, right after I watched the movie. All I could think of was that the Scooby-Doo cheesy mystery bits just didn't gel with the hardcore psycho-sexual stuff. Could have been a good juxtaposition, but for me, just didn't work. And that's kinda what Ebert said.

Logged

Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary: the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

I've never seen the video, I just read his review on his website, right after I watched the movie. All I could think of was that the Scooby-Doo cheesy mystery bits just didn't gel with the hardcore psycho-sexual stuff. Could have been a good juxtaposition, but for me, just didn't work. And that's kinda what Ebert said.

I think Lynch is using bits and pieces of old movie convention to explore ideas of consciousness and dreams. Blue Velvet is to, say, Shadow of a Doubt what Wild at Heart is to The Wizard of Oz. He's really, really not a narrative filmmaker in the least. He may abuse/exploit/subvert "narrative" conventions for his own ends, but if a narrative that gels in the usual way is what you go in looking for, you're not going to find it. His films make a different kind of sense, and they do so perfectly.

Edit: Ebert's televised review of the film made it clear that his response was based on prudish pseudo-chivalry. He felt bad for Isabella Rosselini/her character for being naked. It was completely arbitrary. Really poor reviewing, even for television.

Logged

""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

I really want to see Ebert's televised interview before commenting on that further, but for me, I don't think the treatment of Rossellini was the primary issue Ebert took with the film. That was just one of many things wrong with it. What it all comes down to is narrative, really. If a film is advertised as such, it should be. Not that I have anything against more abstract films, it's just that Lynch's style in the two films I've seen is really annoying.

Mulholland Drive and Blue Velvet were both hypnotic and mesmorizing for the first two acts, but they fell apart, because Lynch draws on his own experiences and dreams, throws them into his films, and expects that to be a sufficient way to tie things up, when really, we're wanting not so much a valid explanation or justification, or even a closure, but simply something that gels.

Some writers say stories should have a beginning, middle, and an end, not necessarily in that order. That may or not be sufficient, depending on who you ask. I think something can be accomplished in film even eschewing that. But Lynch was just careless, and that's what I believe Ebert is getting at. And if not, I know at least I sure am.

EDIT: Lynch's dreams and experiences don't mean anything to us, and he shouldn't expect them to. Perhaps he should save those for his paintings, or at least gather his thoughts to make the images he's found in his subconscious more relevant to what he's discussing. Lynch's films (again, the two I've seen) don't really have a point other than to provoke you. And that, too, is careless.

Yeah, I've always had some issues with a certain kind of narrative breaking. I guess surrealism, in a way. Yet I like what Bunuel I've seen. But with Lynch (and I'm certainly not getting down on him, it's just not my kinda cinema), I feel like it's such an easy way out to say "I break trad narrative, I show dream states". Because really, dreams have no rules, so you can jack off for 2 hours and do whatever you want story-wise, then say "well, it's a dream, so it doesn't have to make sense". It's just not something I value all that highly. But it's quite possible that I will one day get into it, and just love it.

Logged

Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary: the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

I think the difference between Blue Velvet and Mulholland Dr to me is the viewings of the films.

I've seen Blue Velvet twice and I didn't enjoy either viewing.

Mulholland Dr, I've seen 2 or 3 times and I've enjoyed each viewing. I didn't "get it" but I enjoyed it.

I've seen Wild at Heart and I cannot understand how it won the Palme d'Or. I was entertained by the film but I didn't think it was very good. It is like if Starship Troopers (a film I love) won the Palme d'Or.

Anyways, I don't hate Lynch (haven't seen enough of his films to really comment) but I'm not much of a fan.

EDIT: I've seen the clip from the show on the DVD. I can say that I didn't become an Ebert fan until I heard him lecture/met him and I started reading this reviews. I don't think the show does his reviews justice.

Godardian, since I trust your reasoning and are the main defender of Blue Velvet here, I will aim discussion to you. I was kinda confused by your reasoning of how what I pointed out as conventions attributed to the film are something of excellence for you. I don't mind if you think it is excellence, but I fully didn't get the reasoning to connect the dots on why you think such.

If Blue Velvet is to Shadow of a Doubt (which I accept as a comparison) then since I didn't see much breakage from one to the other, then how it is an accomplished work? And in exploring a subject, one of the things I always felt about Hitchock's work is that it exists for the time of filmmaking in that it always skates on the outside of a subject and with the indepedent films of the 70s and such, there was an ability to explore more in not just a more realistic way, but a more effective way. Thus with Blue Velvet, I feel the same restraints Hitchcock had in looking at his subject to really get it effective to survive to this day as any work made today. Blue Velvet distinctinely feels like homage while bringing in Lynch's own aethestics where Lynch isn't doing a jump off instead into new areas and structures.